Christie drops appeal of state court ruling authorizing gay marriage

posted at 11:21 am on October 21, 2013 by Allahpundit

I’m a little surprised, even though he’s undoubtedly correct that the appeal was doomed. The New Jersey Supreme Court all but legalized gay marriage in its provisional ruling on Friday; a final ruling next year upholding that judgment was a fait accompli.

But as we spent the last three weeks discovering, the fact that a fight is obviously unwinnable and possibly self-defeating from the start is no excuse not to undertake it.

Gov. Chris Christie announced today that he was dropping the fight against same-sex marriage in New Jersey by withdrawing his his appeal of a major case that was being heard by the state Supreme Court…

Colin Reed, a spokesman for Christie, said that Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, writing for the court in a 7-0 opinion last Friday, “left no ambiguity about the unanimous court’s view on the ultimate decision in this matter when he wrote, ‘same-sex couples who cannot marry are not treated equally under the law today.'”…

“Although the governor strongly disagrees with the court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a vote of the people, the court has now spoken clearly as to their view of the New Jersey Constitution and, therefore, same-sex marriage is the law,” Reed said. “The governor will do his constitutional duty and ensure his administration enforces the law as dictated by the New Jersey Supreme Court.”

Here’s the NJSC’s provisional order from Friday, tucked away at the end of BuzzFeed’s post. Because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Windsor case this past summer that the U.S. government must extend federal benefits to gay couples if they’re lawfully married in their home state, New Jersey’s refusal to grant marital status (as opposed to civil-union status) to gays now effectively denies them access to federal benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled. The state ruling follows from the SCOTUS equal-protection ruling, which is why lots of people thought that the Supreme Court’s decision in Windsor would lead to more court-imposed gay marriage in blue states sooner rather than later. Read the order and you’ll see that, despite its willingness to hold hearings and issue a final ruling next year, the New Jersey Supreme Court had assuredly made up its mind. If there were any silver-bullet arguments against SSM left in the state’s arsenal, they would have been fired already.

The calculus for Christie here was to either (1) show conservatives that he’s willing to “fight the good fight” to the very end by appealing despite the total unlikelihood of success or (2) show New Jersey’s blue electorate that he’s willing to be “reasonable” and not fight to the very end when local news channels are airing footage of happy gay couples celebrating their marriages this morning. The risk in choosing door number two is that he’ll now be attacked by his opponents in the 2016 primaries for having “surrendered” on the issue, even though he vetoed a gay-marriage bill when it came to his desk last year and said all the right things about SCOTUS’s decisions this summer. The risk in choosing door number one is that he’ll face a backlash from New Jersey voters two weeks before the gubernatorial election — not remotely big enough for him to lose, granted, but big enough maybe to deny him the landslide he’s craving. Electability is, after all, 95 percent of Christie’s argument for the GOP nomination three years from now. It’s not enough to win reelection, which is a lock; he wants to run up the score to show national Republicans that he’s the only guy in the field who can make Hillary worry. Christie’s dream scenario (which he’d never admit to, of course) is that he wins by 25 points in Jersey while true conservative Ken Cuccinelli ends up getting blown out in purplish Virginia. That one-two punch will give a lot of conservatives who dislike Christie pause in ruling him out categorically for 2016.

The reason I’m a little surprised is that it’s hard for me to believe, given his track record of principled opposition to SSM, that quietly appealing Friday’s NJSC provisional order would do him any damage over the next two weeks. If you’re a Jerseyite who’s willing to vote against Christie because of gay marriage, you should have written him off long ago due to his veto. If you’re on the fence, you should have some small reservoir of goodwill for him for signing a bill two months ago banning “conversion therapy” for gay kids. He’s assuming, I guess, that his overall anti-SSM track record will neutralize the “surrender” arguments against him in 2016, but if Tom Coburn can be rebranded a RINO simply for disagreeing with the “defund” strategy, I’m sure Christie can be rebranded as pro-gay-marriage for this. Probably won’t matter much either way, though. If you hate him already, you hate him even more now. If you don’t, who cares about the appeal?

Whatever they are they can be considered similar to those with consensual polygamous and incestuous relationships.

sentinelrules on October 21, 2013 at 9:28 PM

No they can’t. Polygamous and incestuous relationships both have inherent problems with them (I think we’ve at least agreed to that much) but adult homosexual relationships do not, or at least there aren’t any inherent problems that I’m aware of. If there is an inherent problem I’m not aware of then I’m listening.

No they can’t. Polygamous and incestuous relationships both have inherent problems with them (I think we’ve at least agreed to that much) but adult homosexual relationships do not, or at least there aren’t any inherent problems that I’m aware of. If there is an inherent problem I’m not aware of then I’m listening.

alchemist19 on October 21, 2013 at 9:41 PM

The same inherent problems with polygamy and incest can also be attributed to homosexuality.

You clearly do need it explained to you why incest and polygamy are problematic. I can’t believe I have to do this……

I’ll do polygamy first.

Polygamy is a problem because without failure when it is practiced it always leads to one man with multiple wives (there will undoubtedly be a few exceptions that go the other way but a lot more often that not it’s one man with multiple women). This is highly detrimental to a society.

For starters women will become more highly sought after because there won’t be enough of them to go around as more upscale men accumulate wives for themselves. What we’re going to end up with is a surplus of largely economically downscale single men with no prospect of having families of their own. Unmarried men without families are more apt to engage in risky behaviors, and will be left to search out sexual partners outside of a relationship (though the use of prostitutes or other even worse means). As women become more scarce (read: more valuable, almost like property) you will have increasingly desperate men seeking out the only women who are still available for marriage, that being young girls, some of whom can probably be had for a price. In the end girls will become a very worthwhile investment and we could see all sorts of things stem from that like a growth in human trafficking, and even sex-selective abortions to get rid of unwanted and relatively valueless future sons. Polygamy won’t have to be widely practiced to start to tip the scales either. If five percent of men take two wives, three percent of men take three and two percent of men take four while every other woman only has a single husband then one sixth of the men in the country will have no prospect of marriage because there simply won’t be enough women to go around.

Polygamy is a disaster for a culture. It degrades women and leads to their being treated as property and it robs a certain portion of men of any realistic possibility of ever being married. It’s been seen time and time again every time it’s been practiced, and that’s why every civilized culture has moved away from it. Gay marriage has none of those flaws; in fact does the opposite because rather than strip a group of people from any realistic change to exercise their fundamental right to get married, it ensures everyone, even homosexuals, have the right to marry.

Gay marriage and polygamy are about as far apart as you can get. It’s intellectually dishonest to say that once we have the former were are destined for the latter.

Except that very little of that occurs in Muslim countries where polygamy occurs and is encouraged. Especially with regards to a diminishing number of women to marry.

Sp, why is incestuous relationships not OK with you?

sentinelrules on October 21, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Are you suggesting that Muslim nations where polygamy is still practiced are good models for social policy in the United States? Or that girls in Muslim nations aren’t treated as property?

I went last time and explained why the problems with polygamy are in no way relatable to gay marriage so how about you go now and explain to me what the problems with gay marriage itself are. Don’t try to tie it to anything else either, I want to know what the problem with gay marriage and only gay marriage is, and if it’s your position that gay marriage would be OK if it didn’t lead to other ills like incest then please make that clear.

Are you suggesting that Muslim nations where polygamy is still practiced are good models for social policy in the United States? Or that girls in Muslim nations aren’t treated as property?

Except that polygamy has very little to do with equality for females. In third world countries in Africa, where polygamy is not widely practiced, females are not treated as well. Indeed in sub-Asian countries such as India.

Where is the direct correlation?

I went last time and explained why the problems with polygamy are in no way relatable to gay marriage so how about you go now and explain to me what the problems with gay marriage itself are. Don’t try to tie it to anything else either, I want to know what the problem with gay marriage and only gay marriage is, and if it’s your position that gay marriage would be OK if it didn’t lead to other ills like incest then please make that clear.

alchemist19 on October 21, 2013 at 10:19 PM

They were not very convincing. I can go into ways where homosexual marriage is harmful for children.

And my problems with homosexual marriage are not exclusive as I am opposed to polygamy and incestuous relationships as well.

I’m just curious to why you signal those two as being not OK with you, since you base your acceptance of homosexuality on equality, so why the double standard?

Except that polygamy has very little to do with equality for females. In third world countries in Africa, where polygamy is not widely practiced, females are not treated as well. Indeed in sub-Asian countries such as India.

Where is the direct correlation?

To be sure polygamy isn’t the only way women and girls can be mistreated by a society but that doesn’t change the fact polygamy leads to (or adds to) the mistreatment of women and for that the practice ought to remain illegal.

They were not very convincing. I can go into ways where homosexual marriage is harmful for children.

Then do so. That’s what I’ve been waiting to hear. It’s not exactly the same thing because gay marriage doesn’t necessarily mean there will be children involved so it’s not exactly fair to couple the two issues but I will at least hear you out.

And my problems with homosexual marriage are not exclusive as I am opposed to polygamy and incestuous relationships as well.

If you’re opposed to homosexual marriage for reasons specific to homosexual marriage then stick to those. There should be no need to mention incest and polygamy if the reasons against homosexual marriage will stand on their own.

I’m just curious to why you signal those two as being not OK with you, since you base your acceptance of homosexuality on equality, so why the double standard?

sentinelrules on October 21, 2013 at 10:25 PM

No double standard at all. Like I said, polygamy and incest are things that have a long and disasterous track record throughout human history and I like to use history as a guide. Allowing gay people to get married doesn’t cause any harm at all so I see no reason to forbid it.

To be sure polygamy isn’t the only way women and girls can be mistreated by a society but that doesn’t change the fact polygamy leads to (or adds to) the mistreatment of women and for that the practice ought to remain illegal.

Homosexuality leads to (or adds to) child molestation as 33% of all child molestation are done by homosexual, which represent 1-2% of the US population.

That’s what I’ve been waiting to hear. It’s not exactly the same thing because gay marriage doesn’t necessarily mean there will be children involved so it’s not exactly fair to couple the two issues but I will at least hear you out.

Polygamy doesn’t necessarily mean that all women will be mistreated in a relationship. So, why the difference?

If you’re opposed to homosexual marriage for reasons specific to homosexual marriage then stick to those. There should be no need to mention incest and polygamy if the reasons against homosexual marriage will stand on their own.

No double standard at all. Like I said, polygamy and incest are things that have a long and disasterous track record throughout human history and I like to use history as a guide. Allowing gay people to get married doesn’t cause any harm at all so I see no reason to forbid it.

alchemist19 on October 21, 2013 at 10:34 PM

Except that you provide your basis that homosexuals should marry due to equality.

If you truly believe in equality, then incestuous partners and polygamy should be allowed according to your criteria of equality.

Homosexuality leads to (or adds to) child molestation as 33% of all child molestation are done by homosexual, which represent 1-2% of the US population.

Even if I accept this as true it has nothing, and I mean zip-zero-nada, to do with gay marriage. Even if most child molesters are homosexuals the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are not child molesters. And odds are pretty good that a homosexual who really wants to marry their adult partner is not going to be a child molester.

Polygamy doesn’t necessarily mean that all women will be mistreated in a relationship. So, why the difference?

Depends on what you mean by mistreatment. If women are in short supply because we’ve got a few men taking more than their share of women, men start getting desperate and some single guy in his 50s who has not been able to find a wife convinces some needy or desperate family to marry off their 15 year old daughter to him in exchange for financial assistance and then that man gives her a nice home to stay in and doesn’t beat her is she being mistreated for having been married off at such a young age? I think so.

Except that you provide your basis that homosexuals should marry due to equality.

If you truly believe in equality, then incestuous partners and polygamy should be allowed according to your criteria of equality.

sentinelrules on October 21, 2013 at 10:41 PM

No. The basis of my argument is that if we’re going to abridge anyone’s rights of due process and equal protection we need a pretty good reason to do it. When it comes to incest and polygamy there are tons of reasons, some of which I have listed. When it comes to consensual adult homosexuals I can’t come up with any reason at all.

And odds are pretty good that a homosexual who really wants to marry their adult partner is not going to be a child molester.

And the odds are pretty good that polygamists won’t abuse the females in the marriages.

If women are in short supply because we’ve got a few men taking more than their share of women, men start getting desperate and some single guy in his 50s who has not been able to find a wife convinces some needy or desperate family to marry off their 15 year old daughter to him in exchange for financial assistance and then that man gives her a nice home to stay in and doesn’t beat her is she being mistreated for having been married off at such a young age? I think so.

Except that women are not in short supply in polygamous nations in the Middle East. As for the 15-year old daughter example, that can occur in any nation with a high poverty rate.

No. The basis of my argument is that if we’re going to abridge anyone’s rights of due process and equal protection we need a pretty good reason to do it. When it comes to incest and polygamy there are tons of reasons, some of which I have listed. When it comes to consensual adult homosexuals I can’t come up with any reason at all.

alchemist19 on October 21, 2013 at 10:50 PM

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”

You changed your reasoning in only a few hours.

1. Homosexuals are allowed to marry due to equality.
2. Marriage is based on arbitrary reasons.
3. Polygamists and Incestuous relationships shouldn’t be allowed due to historical reasons.

Basically, it’s a run-around on why homosexuals should get preferential treatment.

And the odds are pretty good that polygamists won’t abuse the females in the marriages.

Women are demeaned when polygamy is allowed to exist, period. And polygamy abridges the rights of men too by depriving a certain percentage of them from any hope of ever being married. The trouble of the surplus men is more manageable when you’re living in a culture where you need lots of soldiers to constantly be off fighting and dying in wars but in a modern Western society where that doesn’t happen that problem is going to rear its head.

Except that women are not in short supply in polygamous nations in the Middle East. As for the 15-year old daughter example, that can occur in any nation with a high poverty rate.

I’m not saying it can’t happen, I’m saying legalizing polygamy encourages it. It should not be encouraged in any way, shape, manner or form.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”

You changed your reasoning in only a few hours.

1. Homosexuals are allowed to marry due to equality.
2. Marriage is based on arbitrary reasons.
3. Polygamists and Incestuous relationships shouldn’t be allowed due to historical reasons.

Basically, it’s a run-around on why homosexuals should get preferential treatment.

sentinelrules on October 21, 2013 at 10:57 PM

There are parts of my argument that I thought were implicit and easily understood but I will clarify.

Homosexuals don’t get special or preferential treatment, they get the same treatment as heterosexuals do. You were trying to justify not giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals by linking homosexual marriage to incest and polygamy. I pointed out that incest and polygamy both have a unique set of problems associated with them, and that the problems associated with them that lead to their being outlawed are not present in homosexual marriages so the illegality of the former does not translate to the latter.

As to marriage itself, what is and is not a marriage in the eyes of the government is whatever the government chooses to define as a marriage. The government wrote its own marriage laws as it saw fit (i.e.: it is arbitrary) and it has the power to change those laws as necessary. As opposed to incest and polygamy, gay marriage causes no harm so there is not justifiable reason for a state not to allow it, especially if that state guarantees equal protection under the law.

Women are demeaned when polygamy is allowed to exist, period. And polygamy abridges the rights of men too by depriving a certain percentage of them from any hope of ever being married. The trouble of the surplus men is more manageable when you’re living in a culture where you need lots of soldiers to constantly be off fighting and dying in wars but in a modern Western society where that doesn’t happen that problem is going to rear its head.

Children are demeaned when homosexual is allowed to exist. And again, the stats don’t bear this out as in Muslim countries where polygamy is allowed, large groups of men are not denied to be married to women.

The example of soldiers needed to be fighting tend to exist where the male-female ratio is starting to rise.

I’m not saying it can’t happen, I’m saying legalizing polygamy encourages it. It should not be encouraged in any way, shape, manner or form.

Encouraging homosexuality encourages child molestation, so it should not be encouraged in any way, shape, manner or form.

Homosexuals don’t get special or preferential treatment, they get the same treatment as heterosexuals do. You were trying to justify not giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals by linking homosexual marriage to incest and polygamy. I pointed out that incest and polygamy both have a unique set of problems associated with them, and that the problems associated with them that lead to their being outlawed are not present in homosexual marriages so the illegality of the former does not translate to the latter.

As opposed to incest and polygamy, gay marriage causes no harm so there is not justifiable reason for a state not to allow it, especially if that state guarantees equal protection under the law.

alchemist19 on October 21, 2013 at 11:14 PM

But most polygamists and incestuous partners are heterosexuals, so why should they not get the same treatment as homosexuals? The problems of incest and polygamy can also be attributed to problems with homosexuality, while not the same, they should not be signaled out for acceptance.

You can’t argue for equality and them others of not being equal. That’s apartheid.

I’m going to try to treat this seriously, or at least as seriously as I can.

Most child molesters are also men. Should we not allow men to exist?

And again, the stats don’t bear this out as in Muslim countries where polygamy is allowed, large groups of men are not denied to be married to women.

The example of soldiers needed to be fighting tend to exist where the male-female ratio is starting to rise.

So then where are the extra girls coming from?

Encouraging homosexuality encourages child molestation, so it should not be encouraged in any way, shape, manner or form.

You know homosexuality is not a choice, right? And I’ll repeat my point about most child molesters being men so should we apply your logic all the way and not encourage maleness in any way, shape, manner or form?

But most polygamists and incestuous partners are heterosexuals, so why should they not get the same treatment as homosexuals?

Because incest and polygamy have inherent problems associated with them and homosexuality does not.

The problems of incest and polygamy can also be attributed to problems with homosexuality, while not the same, they should not be signaled out for acceptance.

You can’t argue for equality and them others of not being equal. That’s apartheid.

sentinelrules on October 21, 2013 at 11:23 PM

You’re starting to lose it. If the problems associated with polygamy and/or incest are directly translatable to homosexual marriage then tell me what the problems are and how they translate. You’ve not done that. All you’ve done is try to link homosexuality to child molestation using logic that could also be used to ban maleness.

The argument for homosexual marriage and not polygamy or incest is something I’ve said before and will repeat again for you just so it’s clear. Polygamy/incest are not the equal of heterosexual or homosexual marriage because polygamy and incest are harmful while adult consensual marriage to a single partner (regardless of gender) is harmless.

If gay marriage is harmful then tell me how (without mentioning incest or polygamy).

Wow…..
I’m going to try to treat this seriously, or at least as seriously as I can.
Most child molesters are also men. Should we not allow men to exist?

No, I was mimicking your complaint about polygamy.

So then where are the extra girls coming from?

You didn’t read properly. This problem is not occurring in polygamous nations but rather nations that selectively abort babies based on gender.

You know homosexuality is not a choice, right? And I’ll repeat my point about most child molesters being men so should we apply your logic all the way and not encourage maleness in any way, shape, manner or form?

Pedophilia is not a choice either and neither is schizophrenia. And your point about male child molesters are pointless based on the above.

Because incest and polygamy have inherent problems associated with them and homosexuality does not.

They have inherent problems that are different from one another, but that doesn’t preclude homosexuality not having inherent problems.

If the problems associated with polygamy and/or incest are directly translatable to homosexual marriage then tell me what the problems are and how they translate. You’ve not done that. All you’ve done is try to link homosexuality to child molestation using logic that could also be used to ban maleness.

The argument for homosexual marriage and not polygamy or incest is something I’ve said before and will repeat again for you just so it’s clear. Polygamy/incest are not the equal of heterosexual or homosexual marriage because polygamy and incest are harmful while adult consensual marriage to a single partner (regardless of gender) is harmless.

alchemist19 on October 21, 2013 at 11:36 PM

It’s a shame you’re not losing your hypocrisy.

To the contrary, your complaint about polygamy is based on faulty premises and evidence which isn’t there. Let alone you haven’t touched on what’s wrong with incestuous relationships.

Again, there are problems associated with homosexual relationships comparable to that of incest and polygamy. Why you continue to signal out homosexual relationships as getting preferential treatment just exposes your refusal for a valid answer on why they should not be allowed.

If gay marriage is harmful then tell me how (without mentioning incest or polygamy).

alchemist19 on October 21, 2013 at 11:36 PM

I dislike quoting myself but I’ll throw this out to anyone who’s still reading. If you can answer this question then you have a very bright future on the legal team of any of a few Republican governors who are currently in court defending their state’s gay marriage ban. Christie actually tried to come up with something and couldn’t and that why he lost last week. If you’ve got something good though then call up the attorney general of either Pennsylvania or Michigan ASAP tomorrow because they’re racking their brains over there and they’ve not come up with anything yet. So if you care about this and you think you’re on to something then don’t be shy.

You didn’t read properly. This problem is not occurring in polygamous nations but rather nations that selectively abort babies based on gender.

I know there are problems in China related to sex-selective abortions, but if you think it’s not a problem in Muslim countries that some men are hogging all the women then where are the extra girls coming from? Are child brides not a problem in Middle Eastern society? Are there no stories about that?

Pedophilia is not a choice either and neither is schizophrenia. And your point about male child molesters are pointless based on the above.

Never said pedophilia and schizophrenia were a choice. That doesn’t change the fact both are inherently harmful whereas homosexuality is not so it’s dishonest to compare them.

They have inherent problems that are different from one another, but that doesn’t preclude homosexuality not having inherent problems.

Then as I asked for in my post a minute ago, tell me what those problems are, then immediately forward your response to the governors of Michigan and Pennsylvania.

It’s a shame you’re not losing your hypocrisy.

To the contrary, your complaint about polygamy is based on faulty premises and evidence which isn’t there. Let alone you haven’t touched on what’s wrong with incestuous relationships.

I haven’t gotten to incest yet because it’s difficult to even get you to acknowledge the problems of polygamy. Speaking of that, you claim to oppose polygamy (or as I like to call it, “Biblical marriage”). Why?

Again, there are problems associated with homosexual relationships comparable to that of incest and polygamy.

For the one millionth time, what are those problems?

Why you continue to signal out homosexual relationships as getting preferential treatment just exposes your refusal for a valid answer on why they should not be allowed.

sentinelrules on October 21, 2013 at 11:49 PM

I’ll definitely consider supporting gay marriage bans if you can give me this list of reasons you have to oppose it. I used to be on your side of this issue until I was challenged to make an intellectual argument against gay marriage itself and I couldn’t come up with anything. So step up and do what I couldn’t. Tell me what is wrong with gay people being allowed to marry each other.

I know there are problems in China related to sex-selective abortions, but if you think it’s not a problem in Muslim countries that some men are hogging all the women then where are the extra girls coming from? Are child brides not a problem in Middle Eastern society? Are there no stories about that?

Child brides are a problem in India and Africa where polygamy is not prevalent.

Then as I asked for in my post a minute ago, tell me what those problems are, then immediately forward your response to the governors of Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Why? When the 6th Circuit has a 8-5 GOP for Michigan and a 9-3 GOP majority for NJ and PA. You do know that DOMA was not 100% struck down, right?

I haven’t gotten to incest yet because it’s difficult to even get you to acknowledge the problems of polygamy. Speaking of that, you claim to oppose polygamy (or as I like to call it, “Biblical marriage”). Why?

I have a different explanation: You can’t preclude incestuous partners from marrying while allowing homosexual marriage. And yes, I oppose polygamy, incestuous marriages and homosexual marriages (or as I like to call it, sexual deviancy).

For the one millionth time, what are those problems?

I’ll definitely consider supporting gay marriage bans if you can give me this list of reasons you have to oppose it. I used to be on your side of this issue until I was challenged to make an intellectual argument against gay marriage itself and I couldn’t come up with anything. So step up and do what I couldn’t. Tell me what is wrong with gay people being allowed to marry each other.

alchemist19 on October 22, 2013 at 12:00 AM

For the one billionth time why should homosexuals be allowed to marry and not polygamist and incestuous partners? Why are homosexuals given preferential treatment?

It’s not intellectual for having double standards on an issue unless you favor separate by and not equal for certain segments of the population.

Two cultural bright spots to be sure. But I guess if having nuclear arms means a nation has policies we should emulate it would explain Odumbo’s fascination with the USSR’s economy.

Child brides are a problem in India and Africa where polygamy is not prevalent.

I didn’t say child brides only result in polygamy, I said that polygamy gives rise to more child brides.

Why? When the 6th Circuit has a 8-5 GOP for Michigan and a 9-3 GOP majority for NJ and PA. You do know that DOMA was not 100% struck down, right?

Not all struck down yet but I expect it to be struck down by SCOTUS soon enough, unless of course the GOP manages to hand the House back to the Democrats in 2014 and Congress repeals what’s left of it.

I have a different explanation: You can’t preclude incestuous partners from marrying while allowing homosexual marriage. And yes, I oppose polygamy, incestuous marriages and homosexual marriages (or as I like to call it, sexual deviancy).

It’s been exceedingly difficult to get you to offer support for any of your positions. Trust me, I can pick apart an argument for incest pretty easily and if we ever can get you to say some of what you think about polygamy then we will get to it. But first thing’s first.

I’ve got two yes/no questions for you.

Do you disagree with my assertion that polygamy leads to the demeaning or degrading of the status of women?

Do you disagree with my assertion that polygamy leads to a certain percentage of men being unable to find wives or start families of their own, or are expelled from society to reduce the competition for wives (the so-called “lost boys”)?

For the one billionth time why should homosexuals be allowed to marry and not polygamist and incestuous partners? Why are homosexuals given preferential treatment?

For the billionth time, because homosexual marriage is not the same as incest or polygamy. There are different issues surrounding all three things.

It’s not intellectual for having double standards on an issue unless you favor separate by and not equal for certain segments of the population.

sentinelrules on October 22, 2013 at 12:09 AM

I’m in favor of having the same standard for the same things. Homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages are pretty much equivalent so we ought to treat them the same. Both of those are very different from either polygamy or incest so we should treat them differently.

Why? When the 6th Circuit has a 8-5 GOP for Michigan and a 9-3 GOP majority for NJ and PA. You do know that DOMA was not 100% struck down, right?

This deserves special attention.

The Third Circuit covering PA is irrelevant because the PA statute violates the state constitution so those trials will occur in state courts and prohibition can be overturned without the federal courts getting involved just like what happened in New Jersey.

The Sixth Circuit does indeed cover Michigan and that court has more Republican appointees than Democrats so if the state of Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is found to be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment at the district court level (which is the way the judge, a Reagan appointee, seemed to be leaning) then there is indeed a good chance it will be overturned at the appellate level. From there though it’s going straight to SCOTUS and after the reading the Windsor ruling I wouldn’t feel too confident if I were you.

Two cultural bright spots to be sure. But I guess if having nuclear arms means a nation has policies we should emulate it would explain Odumbo’s fascination with the USSR’s economy.

That can be attributed more to Islam than polygamy.

I didn’t say child brides only result in polygamy, I said that polygamy gives rise to more child brides.

And homosexuality gives rise to child molestations.

Not all struck down yet but I expect it to be struck down by SCOTUS soon enough, unless of course the GOP manages to hand the House back to the Democrats in 2014 and Congress repeals what’s left of it.

Doubtful since the Democrats won’t have nearly enough for a filibuster-proof majority.

Do you disagree with my assertion that polygamy leads to the demeaning or degrading of the status of women?

Do you disagree with my assertion that polygamy leads to a certain percentage of men being unable to find wives or start families of their own, or are expelled from society to reduce the competition for wives (the so-called “lost boys”)?

I disagree with your assertion that polygamy leads to a demeaning status to women. You assertion that it leads to fewer males marrying is not supported by the evidence in Middle East countries where polygamy is prevalent.

For the billionth time, because homosexual marriage is not the same as incest or polygamy. There are different issues surrounding all three things.

So, why is polygamy and incest not accepted while homosexual marriage is apart from a double standard on your part?

I’m in favor of having the same standard for the same things. Homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages are pretty much equivalent so we ought to treat them the same. Both of those are very different from either polygamy or incest so we should treat them differently.

alchemist19 on October 22, 2013 at 1:10 AM

Why is homosexual marriage considered the same to heterosexual marriage while incest and polygamy are not?

You go from equality, to arbitrary, to historical history and now to an implication that polygamy leads to mistreatment of women while homosexuality leads to child molestation.

The Third Circuit covering PA is irrelevant because the PA statute violates the state constitution so those trials will occur in state courts and prohibition can be overturned without the federal courts getting involved just like what happened in New Jersey.

For somebody who claims to be an intellectual, you are not.

The PA Supreme Court has a Republican majority, in which case, the homosexual marriage plaintiffs intend to go to the federal courts after the gay marriage ban is upheld.

The NJ Supreme Court did not uphold gay marriage because it was not appealed there as Christie dropped his appeal.

However, next year, a federal case will be brought up and the conservative Appeals Court of the 3rd should strike down gay marriage.

The Sixth Circuit does indeed cover Michigan and that court has more Republican appointees than Democrats so if the state of Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is found to be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment at the district court level (which is the way the judge, a Reagan appointee, seemed to be leaning) then there is indeed a good chance it will be overturned at the appellate level. From there though it’s going straight to SCOTUS and after the reading the Windsor ruling I wouldn’t feel too confident if I were you.

alchemist19 on October 22, 2013 at 1:22 AM

Any chance of the Mega Million lottery numbers? There’s no 100% certainty that the USSC would even hear the case or just kick it back down the courts as they did with Affirmative Action.

Well, you don’t have the judicial mind of Scalia. I hope your narcissist mind can handle that.

sentinelrules on October 22, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Scalia is smarter than me but that doesn’t mean he’s always right, and his dissent in Lawrence is the most damned awful thing he has ever written. And you still can’t seem to tell me an inherent problem with gay marriage. I’m starting to think there isn’t one.

Homosexuality is not a cause of child molestation. Polygamy historically is a cause of child brides. And it’s disingenuous to compare the two as you are because we can’t make homosexuality go away; people are born that way and will continue to be no matter what laws we have. The child brides would stop when the polygamy stops.

Doubtful since the Democrats won’t have nearly enough for a filibuster-proof majority.

You have far greater faith than I do in the GOP’s ability not to shoot themselves in the face, nor would I expect unanimous GOP support to uphold it.

I disagree with your assertion that polygamy leads to a demeaning status to women. You assertion that it leads to fewer males marrying is not supported by the evidence in Middle East countries where polygamy is prevalent.

Now you’re ignoring arithmetic. Seriously, spend a couple seconds on Google and find out about the plight of young men who get kicked out of polygamist fundamental Mormon communities. But if you disagree that polygamy demeans the status of women and if you want to ignore inconvenient math then I’m curious what your reasons for opposing polygamy are. Is your personal simple moral disapproval the beginning and end of it or are there other reasons?

So, why is polygamy and incest not accepted while homosexual marriage is apart from a double standard on your part?

Because polygamy and incest are inherently harmful and allowing homosexuals to marry each other is not. And you are being awfully coy with your list of reasons allowing homosexuals to get married is inherently bad.

The PA Supreme Court has a Republican majority, in which case, the homosexual marriage plaintiffs intend to go to the federal courts after the gay marriage ban is upheld.

The NJ Supreme Court did not uphold gay marriage because it was not appealed there as Christie dropped his appeal.

However, next year, a federal case will be brought up and the conservative Appeals Court of the 3rd should strike down gay marriage.

The PA Supreme Court is 4-3 GOP appointees right now but SCOTUS is 5-4 GOP appointees and how did that go? The plaintiffs will end up at the Third Circuit if the ruling doesn’t go their way but I don’t think that partisan makeup necessarily dooms their chances.

You are right that the New Jersey Supreme Court didn’t explicitly uphold gay marriage but they did tip their hand strongly enough that Christie realized he was wasting state money fighting for a lost cause. Oh and of the seven members of the New Jersey court, three are Democrats, one is an independent and three and Republicans and they ruled unanimously on this one.

Any chance of the Mega Million lottery numbers? There’s no 100% certainty that the USSC would even hear the case or just kick it back down the courts as they did with Affirmative Action.

sentinelrules on October 22, 2013 at 9:09 AM

I didn’t say it was 100% certain, just that I wouldn’t feel good about it if I were you. And if we get an anti-gay marriage ruling out of the Third or Sixth and a pro gay marriage ruling out of the Ninth then they’re baiting SCOTUS to take it up.

Scalia is smarter than me but that doesn’t mean he’s always right, and his dissent in Lawrence is the most damned awful thing he has ever written. And you still can’t seem to tell me an inherent problem with gay marriage. I’m starting to think there isn’t one.

alchemist19 on October 22, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Not really, the 6th Circuit couldn’t explain why incest laws should be upheld in Ohio. And you still can’t tell me the inherent problems with incest and polygamy.

The PA Supreme Court is 4-3 GOP appointees right now but SCOTUS is 5-4 GOP appointees and how did that go? The plaintiffs will end up at the Third Circuit if the ruling doesn’t go their way but I don’t think that partisan makeup necessarily dooms their chances.

You are right that the New Jersey Supreme Court didn’t explicitly uphold gay marriage but they did tip their hand strongly enough that Christie realized he was wasting state money fighting for a lost cause. Oh and of the seven members of the New Jersey court, three are Democrats, one is an independent and three and Republicans and they ruled unanimously on this one.

I think it will considering the GOP conservative advantage in the 3rd circuit.

And spare me on the nature of the NJ Supreme Court. The judge who over-stepped her authority was a Whitman appointee, not a bonafide conservative.

And this is the same 7-0 court that allowed Lautenberg to qualify for the ballot after the deadline in 2002.

I didn’t say it was 100% certain, just that I wouldn’t feel good about it if I were you. And if we get an anti-gay marriage ruling out of the Third or Sixth and a pro gay marriage ruling out of the Ninth then they’re baiting SCOTUS to take it up.

alchemist19 on October 22, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Bait all they want, there is no guarantee the USSC would take up an appeal or just kick it back down.

I feel good due to the conservative nature of the 3rd and 6th – some sanity to the courts.

India is not a polygamous society. You’re undermining your own argument.

Homosexuality is not a cause of child molestation. Polygamy historically is a cause of child brides. And it’s disingenuous to compare the two as you are because we can’t make homosexuality go away; people are born that way and will continue to be no matter what laws we have. The child brides would stop when the polygamy stops.

Child brides occur in nations without prevalence of polygamy. Yes, homosexuality is not a cause of child molestation but neither is polygamy a cause for the mistreatment of women.

As for being born a certain way excludes homosexuality, well, then pedophilia can’t be made to go away. Pedophiles are born that way and will continue to be no matter what laws we have.

Seriously, spend a couple seconds on Google and find out about the plight of young men who get kicked out of polygamist fundamental Mormon communities. But if you disagree that polygamy demeans the status of women and if you want to ignore inconvenient math then I’m curious what your reasons for opposing polygamy are. Is your personal simple moral disapproval the beginning and end of it or are there other reasons?

Because polygamy and incest are inherently harmful and allowing homosexuals to marry each other is not. And you are being awfully coy with your list of reasons allowing homosexuals to get married is inherently bad.

alchemist19 on October 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM

That’s more attributable to Islam than polygamy. I oppose polygamy and incest for the same reasons as I oppose homosexuality as they are detrimental to the children in society. To isolate them from homosexuality is disingenuous on your part.

Homosexuality, along with incest and polygamy, also have inherent problems. And, once again, you apply a double standards on your refusal to allow polygamists and incestuous partners to marry.

India is not a polygamous society. You’re undermining your own argument.

I said India was fairly awful, not that they were polygamists.

Child brides occur in nations without prevalence of polygamy. Yes, homosexuality is not a cause of child molestation but neither is polygamy a cause for the mistreatment of women.

This is where you’re wrong. Polygamy has ills associated with it even beyond the first few I’ve gotten to with you so far; I haven’t even touched on the subject of children yet. And the big difference is that unlike homosexuals, polygamists are only in a culture if a culture allows it. You can’t stop homosexuals from being homosexuals, but you can stop polygamists from being polygamists.

As for being born a certain way excludes homosexuality, well, then pedophilia can’t be made to go away. Pedophiles are born that way and will continue to be no matter what laws we have.

Being born that way is not enough. It’s being born that way and largely harmless that creates the gigantic difference between homosexuality and pedophilia.

That’s more attributable to Islam than polygamy. I oppose polygamy and incest for the same reasons as I oppose homosexuality as they are detrimental to the children in society.

NOW WE’RE GETTING SOMEWHERE!

To isolate them from homosexuality is disingenuous on your part.

Homosexuality, along with incest and polygamy, also have inherent problems. And, once again, you apply a double standards on your refusal to allow polygamists and incestuous partners to marry.

sentinelrules on October 22, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Hallelujah, he’s finally taken a position and started to back it up! You say homosexuality is detrimental to the children in society. How exactly?

This is where you’re wrong. Polygamy has ills associated with it even beyond the first few I’ve gotten to with you so far; I haven’t even touched on the subject of children yet. And the big difference is that unlike homosexuals, polygamists are only in a culture if a culture allows it. You can’t stop homosexuals from being homosexuals, but you can stop polygamists from being polygamists.

Nobody is stopping homosexuals from being homosexuals, just denying them the status of being married. You can’t stop pedophiles from being pedophiles.

Being born that way is not enough. It’s being born that way and largely harmless that creates the gigantic difference between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Your moral standards change to fit your double standards with homosexuality. Incestuous partners are attracted to one’s siblings and are as harmful as homosexuality, so why the difference?

Hallelujah, he’s finally taken a position and started to back it up! You say homosexuality is detrimental to the children in society. How exactly?

Nobody is stopping homosexuals from being homosexuals, just denying them the status of being married. You can’t stop pedophiles from being pedophiles.

The act of pedophilia, that is an adult having sexual relations with a child, is harmful. I really hope I don’t need to explain exactly how and why. Homosexual conduct is harmless, as is allowing homosexuals to get married. You’re trying to compare something harmful prima facie (pedophilia) to something that cause no harm whatsoever (gay marriage), or at least no harm that you are able to articulate. That’s why is comparison is so disingenuous.

Your moral standards change to fit your double standards with homosexuality. Incestuous partners are attracted to one’s siblings and are as harmful as homosexuality, so why the difference?

Incest degrades an existing family unit and often has inherent power differentials because of established family roles and positions that make consent and issue. Homosexuality suffers from none of those problems, and that’s why it’s disingenuous to compare the two.

The same way polygamy and incest are detrimental.

sentinelrules on October 22, 2013 at 1:08 PM

If it’s harmful surely you can articulate what exactly that harm is. Can’t you?

Please tell me why polygamy and incest are unacceptable to you while homosexuality is not. The end around is unbecoming.

sentinelrules on October 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Polygamy degrades women, and leaves men without the possibility of marriage. Incest degrades an existing family unit along with there being some questionable consent issues because of the natural power that comes with certain roles in a family that can make consent difficult. Homosexual marriage suffers from none of those problems. Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “I’M NOT LISTENING! I CAN’T HEAR YOU! LALALALALA!” isn’t doing your case any good.